Libertarianism is built on selfishness and greed.

[lurchadams]

To be fair I agree with libertarians on freedom. Ron Paul telling those fake moral crusaders in the GOP debates that he supported legalization of drugs was priceless and I am grateful he did that because now weed is now legal in several states.

My issue with libertarians was clearly spoken when I saw Ayn Rand speak at the UW in 1976. She clearly stated that poor people, the elderly and the sick where leeches and she did not care if they lived or died if they needed public assistance. Sorry libertarians. I respect your right to brlieve as you please but the political equivalent of Satanism or Manifest Destiny is just not this liberals style. Where is the compassion? Thank God they are of minority opinion.

A "Libertarian" is nothing but a trumpublican who wants to smoke pot and have premarital sex. They're in no way fit to lead this country.

**** the **** off libertarians. You're absolutely useless!

 

[RealityNow]

A Libertarian believes in individual freedom to live one's own life as one choses as long as one does not intentionally act to harm other's or the property rights of other's. This allows for willing cooperation with a group as long as such cooperation is not turned into compulsory obligations to sacrifice more than originally contracted.

Thus an individual can be compassionate if one so choses, or selfish if one so choses, as long as one's actions aren't deliberately intended to cause harm to other's or their property.

This idea of "compulsory compassion" you argue is a moral construct used by those who think they have both a right and a duty to compel other's to submit themselves to the group and "share" in the fruits of their labor. Based on the weird idea that simply by existing one may demand to be taken care of by everyone else. That is the foundation of Socialism and it's extreme of Communism, i.e. that the group has the right to compel individuals to work as hard as possible and then "share" the bulk of their production with those less capable or less willing to put in the same effort.

Your fallacious use of both religious and economic demonization of the inherent individual rights to preserve one's own life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness reflects a typical attempt to claim some "moral high ground" as justified in every ideology arguing "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

Libertarian need to learn to Respect Regulatory Governance .... there is no such thing or place within any form of governance on the planet, were anyone can do anything they want, except by and through what is permissible within abiding by Regulatory Governance and Law.

simple example for those with extreme minds who think they can do anything... Example: your sex organ is yours, but it does not mean you can expose it and play with it, anywhere at any time, in any place and claim it is not harming anyone...
It might be better to realize there are civil and civic and moral matters that are involved, which are more than a whim that can be ignored.

Libertarian is something create in the 1970's ...

 

[PirateMk1]

We NEED laws and we NEED governments to make and enforce laws. Libertarians lose all possible credibility when they say we don't need any governments at all, and we don't need laws or military defense.

I didn't say we don't need laws or don't need government, just that government should be seen as what it truly is, a necessary evil to be absolutely minimalist in nature. We should be responsible for ourselves and solving problems amongst ourselves. Our government should be primarily interested in our common defense, foreign affairs, internal regulation of commerce only such that it is free flowing between the states and encourages fair dealing, maintaining a stable currency and most of all refereeing disputes between ourselves. Everything else should be for the most part left to the individual.

 

[ataraxia]

Or better yet if you think the intersection needs a traffic lights, install them. Besides people around the world do just fine going through busy intersections all the time, many of them are in the united states. By the way on occasion those lights lose power and people manage to use the intersections just fine.

You need to really think before you throw examples.

installing a traffic light without strict enforcement is pretty useless. Who’s going to enforce it?

Are you now disputing the fact that traffic lights at busy intersections are critical for safety?

 

[ataraxia]

I didn't say we don't need laws or don't need government, just that government should be seen as what it truly is, a necessary evil to be absolutely minimalist in nature. We should be responsible for ourselves and solving problems amongst ourselves. Our government should be primarily interested in our common defense, foreign affairs, internal regulation of commerce only such that it is free flowing between the states and encourages fair dealing, maintaining a stable currency and most of all refereeing disputes between ourselves. Everything else should be for the most part left to the individual.

I would add to that the basic rock-bottom safety net for the protection of basic human rights and dignity: things like the right to food, clean water, shelter, a basic education, and access to healthcare, for people who hit hard times. And we are all vulnerable to that. When we hit rock-bottom concrete like that, it helps if the person falling does not permanently crack their skull, and gets another chance to get back up on their feet again. We all deserve to give each other that chance. Anything less is not only inhumane and unjust, but leads to some pretty dysfunctional situations for the whole society. When people’s backs get pushed up against the wall that hard, when the stakes of failure become that high, you will have a society which is socially, economically, and politically highly unstable. No one wins in such a society.

 

[MrWonka]

Your example of losing market share is horseshit. What the hell does a homeless shelter have to do with market share?

Imagine two restaurants in town. Both are competing for customers. Restaurant A donates 10 Thousand dollars to build a homeless shelter. Restaurant B uses that 10k to extend their dining room or build a nice outdoor patio.
Restaurant A has done something that will keep both restaurants from having to deal with homeless people hassling their guests, begging for food, or breaking in at night to get out of the cold. Restaurant B has increased its
profits. Now able to seat more guests Restaurant B can lower their prices as they don't need to make as much profit off each guest. Lower prices lure customers away from Restaurant A cutting into their profits.
Overtime Restaurant A is forced to close while Restaurant B is making enough to open a second location. The nice thing that Restaurant A did for the community ends up destroying them while the selfish thing restaurant B did
gives them a competitive advantage.

This is called a Nash Equilibrium. It is one of the most fundamental principles of modern Economics and it is the reason Libertarianism is a delusion.

I still don't get why you don't pay higher taxes if you think you should.

Because my higher taxes benefit both of us equally. The fact that you cannot grasp why homelessness, poverty, and lack of access to basic health care for others negatively impact your life, in the long run, does not change the reality that it does.

 

[Good4Nothin]

I didn't say we don't need laws or don't need government, just that government should be seen as what it truly is, a necessary evil to be absolutely minimalist in nature. We should be responsible for ourselves and solving problems amongst ourselves. Our government should be primarily interested in our common defense, foreign affairs, internal regulation of commerce only such that it is free flowing between the states and encourages fair dealing, maintaining a stable currency and most of all refereeing disputes between ourselves. Everything else should be for the most part left to the individual.

I mostly agree, except that there are people who cannot help themselves and have no one to help them. You can't let an old disabled person starve to death in the street.

 

[MrWonka]

The point was, I didn't wait for some government wog to put one in.

Because you were the one who most directly benefits from it. If the benefit was shared more equally you would not.
What you have essentially done is created a privately owned commons. Privately owned or not it still suffers from the same problems as any other tragedy of the commons.
So long as the public can reap the benefits of it without being required to contribute it will suffer the same fate. All it takes is for you to see one neighbor using it or abusing
it in a way that you don't like and not contributing their fair share to maintain it and we will see how generous you continue to be.

Yes it is a pretty cool story. Best decision I ever made with the education at the workplace.

And I'm sure all your "associates" are so happy to have their children indoctrinated by you instead of the nation as a whole.
Tell me, if they asked to send their children to a private Muslim school would you still be so happy to pay for it?

 

[MrWonka]

I didn't say we don't need laws or don't need government, just that government should be seen as what it truly is, a necessary evil to be absolutely minimalist in nature.

Translation: To do only the things that directly benefit you, and none of the things that might help someone else level the playing field against you.

 

[Moot]

To be fair I agree with libertarians on freedom. Ron Paul telling those fake moral crusaders in the GOP debates that he supported legalization of drugs was priceless and I am grateful he did that because now weed is now legal in several states.

My issue with libertarians was clearly spoken when I saw Ayn Rand speak at the UW in 1976. She clearly stated that poor people, the elderly and the sick where leeches and she did not care if they lived or died if they needed public assistance. Sorry libertarians. I respect your right to brlieve as you please but the political equivalent of Satanism or Manifest Destiny is just not this liberals style. Where is the compassion? Thank God they are of minority opinion.

I thought Ayn Rand followers were Neo-conservatives.

 

[Bullseye]

Here's the logic. If children are starving under capitalism, somebody in the private sector will volunteer to feed them. If they do not, then feeding hungry children is by definition not such a very high social and cultural priority as we may wish, and we ought to wait until there are enough somebodies in the private sector who change their priorities and do a better job of finding those starving kids and serving them food. It will all work out in the wash.

Huh?

 

[PirateMk1]

installing a traffic light without strict enforcement is pretty useless. Who’s going to enforce it?

Are you now disputing the fact that traffic lights at busy intersections are critical for safety?

they are not critica

Imagine two restaurants in town. Both are competing for customers. Restaurant A donates 10 Thousand dollars to build a homeless shelter. Restaurant B uses that 10k to extend their dining room or build a nice outdoor patio.
Restaurant A has done something that will keep both restaurants from having to deal with homeless people hassling their guests, begging for food, or breaking in at night to get out of the cold. Restaurant B has increased its
profits. Now able to seat more guests Restaurant B can lower their prices as they don't need to make as much profit off each guest. Lower prices lure customers away from Restaurant A cutting into their profits.
Overtime Restaurant A is forced to close while Restaurant B is making enough to open a second location. The nice thing that Restaurant A did for the community ends up destroying them while the selfish thing restaurant B did
gives them a competitive advantage.

This is called a Nash Equilibrium. It is one of the most fundamental principles of modern Economics and it is the reason Libertarianism is a delusion.


Because my higher taxes benefit both of us equally. The fact that you cannot grasp why homelessness, poverty, and lack of access to basic health care for others negatively impact your life, in the long run, does not change the reality that it does.

You obviously have a negative or pessimistic bias A, B you have not been in business for yourself because what you describe is purely theoretical, reality is much messier. Your example has way too many assumptions. If you want charitable works done, then you do them and should do so without exceeding your means, irregardless of what others do. You cannot control what others are going to do and you shouldn't try. What you can control, control, what you cant dont worry about it. If you think it needs done, and you have the capacity, then do it.

Lets take your example and say said restaurant invest in a homeless shelter with 10,000 dollars in cash to support the local community. People will get wind of that, and just doing that will drive more people to your business because people like charitable businesses, have you noticed near every business supports some charitable organization. If investing 10,000 dollars is too much for you to risk in light of your competition, you can still support your local shelter by donating the food you would thrash anyhow to the homeless shelter, something many restaurants do and the homeless shelters depend on. You can join with your competitor and see about splitting the costs of the homeless shelter. Thereby possibly generating good press for the both of you and helping keep the homeless from harassing your customers. There is not just one way. One size does not fit all.

 

[PirateMk1]

I mostly agree, except that there are people who cannot help themselves and have no one to help them. You can't let an old disabled person starve to death in the street.

Then don't, feed them, help them, you don't need a government to be compassionate.

 

[PirateMk1]

Because you were the one who most directly benefits from it. If the benefit was shared more equally you would not.
What you have essentially done is created a privately owned commons. Privately owned or not it still suffers from the same problems as any other tragedy of the commons.
So long as the public can reap the benefits of it without being required to contribute it will suffer the same fate. All it takes is for you to see one neighbor using it or abusing
it in a way that you don't like and not contributing their fair share to maintain it and we will see how generous you continue to be.


And I'm sure all your "associates" are so happy to have their children indoctrinated by you instead of the nation as a whole.
Tell me, if they asked to send their children to a private Muslim school would you still be so happy to pay for it?

Technically the road is not private. Because I require it for my business and convenience, as does the other neighbors, it is maintained I took a risk paving a public road because the road is not mine and I technically have no control. That said so far it has been worth the effort. Abuse of a road is hard to do. I am sure at can be done, but I am pretty sure that would annoy the neighbors who help paying to maintain it. It was a recognized need for the neighborhood, such that it seems supports its installation and maintenance. That said, remember things have context specific reasons.

No I would not pay to send their children to a different school. Again the current school was set up for MY children and their education and I simply invited my associates to join if they desire. All of them do because they like it better than sending their children to public halls of indoctrination. Their children are at our facility and they can see them when they want and participate directly in their education. The children have far more opportunities to do and see unique things they would not otherwise, and acquire an education that is second to none.

 

[PirateMk1]

Translation: To do only the things that directly benefit you, and none of the things that might help someone else level the playing field against you.

No. Assume much do we?

 

[MrWonka]

Lets take your example and say said restaurant invest in a homeless shelter with 10,000 dollars in cash to support the local community. People will get wind of that, and just doing that will drive more people to your business because people like charitable businesses

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

Yeah, now I'm just full-blown calling bullshit on your whole entire story. You clearly know nothing about business or economics whatsoever. People are not paying an extra $3 for the same quality sandwich just because the owner donated money to a charity.
When the majority of people go out to eat they don't have the foggiest ****ing clue what charities the business donated to nor do they care. Hell, I have liberal gay friends who still eat at Chick Fil A because it's cheap, convenient, and they love the chicken.

Some businesses with sponsor a sports team or put some B.S. deal on a booster card because it's free advertising, but nobody is choosing Jersey Mike's over Subway because they donated to the March of Dimes.

 

[CMPancake]

You say that because as a communist, you hold in contempt the very thing that made up the foundation of her philosophy--the defense of individual liberty and individual rights.

I say that because as someone who reads books, Atlas Shrugged, and The Fountainhead are two of the worst books I possibly have ever read.

 

[Fletch]

I say that because as someone who reads books, Atlas Shrugged, and The Fountainhead are two of the worst books I possibly have ever read.

The Fountainhead is actually a great book. You hate it because it is about the triumph of the individual. Commies want the individual crushed beneath the mob and the state. AS, though, is not something you read for the story. So in that regard its not a great book. But it still stands far and above anything you could cobble together if you lived a thousand years.

 

[PirateMk1]

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

Yeah, now I'm just full-blown calling bullshit on your whole entire story. You clearly know nothing about business or economics whatsoever. People are not paying an extra $3 for the same quality sandwich just because the owner donated money to a charity.
When the majority of people go out to eat they don't have the foggiest ****ing clue what charities the business donated to nor do they care. Hell, I have liberal gay friends who still eat at Chick Fil A because it's cheap, convenient, and they love the chicken.

Some businesses with sponsor a sports team or put some B.S. deal on a booster card because it's free advertising, but nobody is choosing Jersey Mike's over Subway because they donated to the March of Dimes.

I provided three different examples, and depending on where you live charitable giving and works moves the the needle and people will support a more charitable business especially in more religious areas. It all is dependent on the people involved and the area you are. That said you decided to cut the post out of its context and go gotcha, which says much about your argument especially as you decided to take mine out of the context in which was given. Here's a reminder.

Post 112

You obviously have a negative or pessimistic bias A, B you have not been in business for yourself because what you describe is purely theoretical, reality is much messier. Your example has way too many assumptions. If you want charitable works done, then you do them and should do so without exceeding your means, irregardless of what others do. You cannot control what others are going to do and you shouldn't try. What you can control, control, what you cant dont worry about it. If you think it needs done, and you have the capacity, then do it.

Lets take your example and say said restaurant invest in a homeless shelter with 10,000 dollars in cash to support the local community. People will get wind of that, and just doing that will drive more people to your business because people like charitable businesses, have you noticed near every business supports some charitable organization. If investing 10,000 dollars is too much for you to risk in light of your competition, you can still support your local shelter by donating the food you would thrash anyhow to the homeless shelter, something many restaurants do and the homeless shelters depend on. You can join with your competitor and see about splitting the costs of the homeless shelter. Thereby possibly generating good press for the both of you and helping keep the homeless from harassing your customers. There is not just one way. One size does not fit all.

That said you are correct many don't care about your charitable works they just want what they want, so any charity you do may not translate. That's fine. I don't do charity for return on investment for my business. That really shouldn't be the reason to do them just a happy coincidence to having done them should you in fact benefit.

 

[soylentgreen]

I didn't say we don't need laws or don't need government, just that government should be seen as what it truly is, a necessary evil to be absolutely minimalist in nature. We should be responsible for ourselves and solving problems amongst ourselves. Our government should be primarily interested in our common defense, foreign affairs, internal regulation of commerce only such that it is free flowing between the states and encourages fair dealing, maintaining a stable currency and most of all refereeing disputes between ourselves. Everything else should be for the most part left to the individual.

What makes you think you are not just swapping one necessary evil for another?
Where as I have some control over government which has an undeniable obligation to be open about its business , I have no control over what or who control a private business.

 

[PirateMk1]

What makes you think you are not just swapping one necessary evil for another?
Where as I have some control over government which has an undeniable obligation to be open about its business , I have no control over what or who control a private business.

You think you have control over your government now?

 

[ProgRockBest]

To be fair I agree with libertarians on freedom. Ron Paul telling those fake moral crusaders in the GOP debates that he supported legalization of drugs was priceless and I am grateful he did that because now weed is now legal in several states.

My issue with libertarians was clearly spoken when I saw Ayn Rand speak at the UW in 1976. She clearly stated that poor people, the elderly and the sick where leeches and she did not care if they lived or died if they needed public assistance. Sorry libertarians. I respect your right to brlieve as you please but the political equivalent of Satanism or Manifest Destiny is just not this liberals style. Where is the compassion? Thank God they are of minority opinion.

Here is the deal. Libertarians have never been the majority anywhere. We really do not know if it works. They clsim it does but I do not see how.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Then don't, feed them, help them, you don't need a government to be compassionate.

You need a government to not have the streets lined with beggars.

 

[PirateMk1]

You need a government to not have the streets lined with beggars.

Seattle and Portland come to mind, would you like to withdraw your statement?

 

[Good4Nothin]

Seattle and Portland come to mind, would you like to withdraw your statement?

It is possible to have a bad government, haven't you heard? But we don't see starving beggars everywhere, thanks to government programs.

And actually, libertarians and conservatives should not mind social programs at state and local levels.